A government tax credits adviser has been jailed after admitting a £25,000 benefit fraud.
Michelle Patten was employed by HM Revenue and Customs to give expert guidance to claimants.
But the mother-of-three from Gosforth, Newcastle, ignored the regulations she knew so well to cheat the system.
Patten was overpaid by up to £9,000 a year in tax credits after failing to disclose she was living with her partner, Richard Pembleton. She even enjoyed family holidays abroad while the swindle brought in the extra cash.
By the time her five-year fiddle was finally uncovered, the loss to the public purse had reached £25,293, Newcastle Crown Court heard.
Now the 38-year-old is behind bars after admitting fraud between 2006 and 2011.
Imposing a six-month jail term, Judge Michael Cartlidge said: “I don’t think the public would understand if I did not pass an effective prison sentence.”
Patten, who had not been in trouble before, was an experienced and respected adviser when she began the fraud. She claimed tax credits on the basis that she was still single.
But from 2006 onwards she had been living as a couple with Mr Pembleton, the father of her youngest child. Year after year, Patten kept up the lie by signing annual declarations confirming her circumstances were unchanged. Only when suspicions last spring triggered a raid at the couple’s home was the fraud finally revealed, the court heard.
Jason Pitter, prosecuting, said: “Evidence was seized in the form of financial documents for Mr Pembleton, family photos showing him with the defendant and both of them with the children as well as family holiday photographs.
“The prosecution case is that given her employment, she would have known from the time they were living together as a couple she had a requirement to declare that and deliberately failed to do so.”
Anne Richardson, defending, said Patten felt “great shame”, took full responsibility and, having lost her job, would struggle to find similarly paid employment. Miss Richardson added: “She is acutely aware of what she has done through her own stupidity.”
Stupidity? Knowing dishonesty.
She urged the court to suspend any prison sentence to reflect Patten’s previous good character, remorse, and guilty plea at the first opportunity.
But Judge Cartlidge said: “What significantly aggravates the case is that throughout this period she was working for the revenue as a tax credits adviser so she knew very well how wrong her declarations were.”
8 comments:
I have to say how amazing it is that you are able to make such 'informed' opinions based solely upon biased newspaper articles. I would not insult your intelligence by assuming that you wouldn't know that there are often very compelling reasons why people commit such crimes despite the detrimental implications on ones family, self and indeed the public purse. What would make your blog entirely more interesting than the banal regurgitation of media injection, would be to glean then present all the facts in order for you and your followers to make a true informed opinion wouldn't you agree?
Theft is theft. This blog doesn't publicise what are obviously genuinely hard cases.
What extenuating circumstances can you see here?
My point exactly. The article you have copied and published neglected to report the mitigating circumstances that led to a relatively short prison sentence in comparison to what she could have received as a Government employee. The circumstances portrayed in this article are not as factual as you would like to believe them to be, heaven forbid that the media should ever misreport anything! With this point in mind, I think it is unfair to 'tar and feather' without all the facts.
So if you know the mitigation, come out and tell us it from under your cloak of anonymity.
Did I read correctly that you were happy for benefit system employees to comment anonymously? If this is the case, why make somebody feel uncomfortable for using this facility? My point again I will reiterate, if you are going to blog about this subject matter, surely you should be in possession of all the facts in order to portray a fair and just representation of the case for your followers to make an informed opinion. I do know the mitigation but, there again so should you if your whole blog is based upon reporting facts.
Let me understand. Are you saying you're an employee in the benefits system who wants to see the mitigation in this case out in the open, who knows the mitigation, but who won't publish it yourself?
Grow up. What I am saying is that YOU should have a responsible attitude to your blog in that you should fairly represent ALL the facts. Your job, not mine. Good day to you.
The Judge - who heard the case - said:
“What significantly aggravates the case is that throughout this period she was working for the revenue as a tax credits adviser so she knew very well how wrong her declarations were.”
"Aggravates". Got that? Michelle Patten deliberately abused the trust placed in her over several years.
No amount of unsubstantiated anonymous objection can overcome that.
Post a Comment